Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Shoemake, 199 F.2d 85, 10th Cir. (1952)
Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Shoemake, 199 F.2d 85, 10th Cir. (1952)
2d 85
jury in favor of the defendants is not sustained by any substantial evidence. But
plaintiff did not move for a directed verdict, and it is well settled that such a
motion or other like request is necessary to raise on appeal the legal question of
the insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. In the absence of a
motion or request of any kind for a directed verdict, the insufficiency of the
evidence to support the verdict and judgment based thereon is not open to
review in this court. New York Life Insurance Co. v. Doerksen, 10 Cir., 75
F.2d 96; Baten v. Kirby Lumber Corp., 5 Cir., 103 F.2d 272; Emanuel v.
Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 8 Cir., 127 F.2d 175; Edwards v. Craig, 7 Cir.,
138 F. 2d 608; Itzkall v. Carlson, 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 647; Jorgensen v. York Ice &
Machinery Corp., 2 Cir., 160 F.2d 432, certiorari denied, 332 U.S. 764, 68 S.Ct.
69, 92 L.Ed. 349; Boston Insurance Co. v. Fisher, 8 Cir., 185 F.2d 977.
The judgment is Affirmed.